EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ve always believed that prayer, a sincere heart, and looking to Christ is the best advice. What I wonder though, is if Christ leads me back to my Evangelical Church (which I believe He has) does that mean Christ didn’t really lead me there?

If Christ leads me to Eastern Orthodoxy does a Roman Catholic believe that Christ didn’t really lead me there? If Christ leads me to the RCC would the Orthodox say that Christ didn’t really lead me there?

That is between you and Christ. I would personally appeal for you to join the Catholic Church but I am not one to call unclean that which the Lord has made clean. The salvific mystery of Christ is at times too complicated. Again patience is a virtue and always remember that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Not saying that you are being arrogant, but I’m speaking more from experience. At times we can be arrogant without realizing it

 

[TRH1292]

This became one of the many discussions which sort of derailed a thread and I’m really interested in understanding this.

I’m an Evangelical Christian, I belong to no Apostolic Faith, whether it be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican or whoever else claims to be #1 among the oldest Christian groups.

I often see the argument posed here that I have no true authority to interpret Scripture, nor does my Pastor. The argument is as follows; “If your Pastor has one interpretation and another Pastor has a different interpretation how can the Holy Spirit guide you to your Pastor’s interpretation and lead another to believe the other interpretation is truth?” I often reply that among Evangelicals our interpretations are extremely close but not always the exact same.

Some differences among Evangelicals are, eternal security, contraception, old earth/new earth and there could be more but most of them are small. But the question remains, “who’s Holy Spirit is right?” I trust God to guide me, I pray, keep an open mind and try to do His will, as does someone who is in another Church with another interpretation.

Now, this seems like a tough argument to address until we look at the tradition of the Catholic Church. There is the RC with its many, many members. The EO in second place, the Copts who believe that Mark personally founded their Church, and many Orthodox branches that are similar to the RC but still not the one true Church.

So for someone like myself, how can I be sure which Church to join? Perhaps it’s the persecuted Copts that I shall join, or perhaps the EO, perhaps the RC? I can pray and trust the Holy Spirit and I may be led to the RC while another is led to the EO. So what’s the difference? One of them is wrong, so how is this argument any different?

Tradition can become just as confusing and practically impossible to interpret as Scripture can. Who can sit around digging through ancient ecumenical council’s trying to piece it all together? It can become almost impossible. That is why the tradition has to be alive. Living and breathing. There has to be a teaching authority now that can explain Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We have to have an authority on the pressing moral issues of our time and on new theological challenges. We cannot simply rely on hundreds of year old documents and are often skewed interpretation of them.

That is the biggest flaw in Orthodoxy. They have a sacred tradition, but not a living magestirium.

This is why we need the Catholic Church.

To get a good picture of all this, read “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallitos/Timothy Ware(An Orthodox Bishop). That book is honestly a great example of just that. Although the Orthodox and others I am sure would claim the Church is infallible, in practice, they don’t believe the Church has any definite way to exercise this. It retreats back to an endless set of quarrels between different bishops in all manner of things. All of the main orthodox bishops have fallen into heresy at one time or another. Heck, the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed Marxism as a Christian teaching during the soviet era.

Without the Catholic Church, an authentic living magestirium under the Pope, Orthodoxy only has a slight foot ahead of Protestantism.

 

[TRH1292]

I’ve always believed that prayer, a sincere heart, and looking to Christ is the best advice. What I wonder though, is if Christ leads me back to my Evangelical Church (which I believe He has) does that mean Christ didn’t really lead me there?

If Christ leads me to Eastern Orthodoxy does a Roman Catholic believe that Christ didn’t really lead me there? If Christ leads me to the RCC would the Orthodox say that Christ didn’t really lead me there?

If you as a Protestant joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, I would say God probably led you there, because you have moved closer to the truth. If a Muslim became a Protestant, that is moving closer to the truth. When an Atheist becomes a Muslim, that is moving closer to the truth.

But when a Catholic becomes a Protestant, that is moving away from truth. When a Protestant becomes a Muslim, that is moving away from the truth.

 

[livingwordunity]

I would be interested in you sharing the other numerous verses.

The Primacy of Peter

Scripture

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

 

[livingwordunity]

The Primacy of Peter

Scripture (Continued)

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

 

[livingwordunity]

Here are some quotes from St. Cyprian, an Eastern early Church father and martyr, about the role of Peter:

St. Cyprian of Carthage on the Papacy

“Peter also, to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He placed and founded the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Treatise II

“Peter also, upon whom by the Lord’s condescension the Church was founded…” -St. Cyprian, Treatise IX

“…Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 48

“Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to** the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source**; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54

“…Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 68

“…and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 69

“…For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 70

“For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity— the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 72

“…Moreover, Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 73

 

[livingwordunity]

The following is more about what the Early Church fathers had done and said regarding recognition of the Primacy of Rome:

The majority of conservative scholars—Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—throughout Christian history have accepted that the author of the following letter was the bishop of Rome, probably the fourth, with Saint Peter being the first. The significance of this particular quote, therefore: What is the bishop of Rome, Italy, doing expecting obedience of a church in Corinth, Greece? Though Greece at this time was under Roman control, still there was no reason to expect a leader of a religious sect in Rome to have any clout over a similar group of religious sectarians in Greece, unless that leader was a bishop with authority over them.

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved … Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”

—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80[/INDENT]

Ignatius, who was from the East, wrote seven letters in all to seven churches, but it was only in his letter to the church in Rome, quoted below, that he expressed such exalted praise of the bishop!

“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110[/INDENT]

Irenaeus, a bishop from the region of France, who learned his faith from Polycarp, who learned his faith from John, demonstrates below the assumption of his day: that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome. How would a Protestant have to re-write this?

“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190[/INDENT]

What most impressed me about the next quote is that, as John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, this defense of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, expressed rhetorically not defensively, predates by nearly a hundred years the conciliar definitions of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ!

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

—St. Cyprian of Carthage
The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251[/INDENT]

Source:
"The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw" by Marcus Grodi​

 

[livingwordunity]

Among the apostles, St. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament which is far more times than the other apostles. The apostle in second place for number of mentions in the New Testament is St. John who is mentioned 29 times. (Source)

For the scriptural case for the primacy of Peter see post #44 and post #45.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

This became one of the many discussions which sort of derailed a thread and I’m really interested in understanding this.

I’m an Evangelical Christian, I belong to no Apostolic Faith, whether it be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican or whoever else claims to be #1 among the oldest Christian groups.

I often see the argument posed here that I have no true authority to interpret Scripture, nor does my Pastor. The argument is as follows; “If your Pastor has one interpretation and another Pastor has a different interpretation how can the Holy Spirit guide you to your Pastor’s interpretation and lead another to believe the other interpretation is truth?” I often reply that among Evangelicals our interpretations are extremely close but not always the exact same.

Some differences among Evangelicals are, eternal security, contraception, old earth/new earth and there could be more but most of them are small. But the question remains, “who’s Holy Spirit is right?” I trust God to guide me, I pray, keep an open mind and try to do His will, as does someone who is in another Church with another interpretation.

Now, this seems like a tough argument to address until we look at the tradition of the Catholic Church. There is the RC with its many, many members. The EO in second place, the Copts who believe that Mark personally founded their Church, and many Orthodox branches that are similar to the RC but still not the one true Church.

So for someone like myself, how can I be sure which Church to join? Perhaps it’s the persecuted Copts that I shall join, or perhaps the EO, perhaps the RC? I can pray and trust the Holy Spirit and I may be led to the RC while another is led to the EO. So what’s the difference? One of them is wrong, so how is this argument any different?

They could use their private interpretation.

 

[livingwordunity]

They could use their private interpretation.

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” - 2 Peter 1:20

 

[House_Harkonnen]

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” - 2 Peter 1:20

No prophecy. What about all the other parts of scripture that aren’t prophecy. They could use their private interpretation for those parts.

 

[livingwordunity]

No prophecy. What about all the other parts of scripture that aren’t prophecy. They could use their private interpretation for those parts.

“So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” - Acts 8:30-31

“that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly place” - Ephesians 3:10

 

[House_Harkonnen]

“So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” - Acts 8:30-31

Was Phillip using his private interpretation when he helped the Ethiopian?

Also Ethiopia went Orthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

Tradition can become just as confusing and practically impossible to interpret as Scripture can. Who can sit around digging through ancient ecumenical council’s trying to piece it all together?

If it’s so impossible, why is it that there are so many compilations of the acts of this or that council? Even councils that I don’t recognize (e.g., Chalcedon) I still have in my library and read semi-regularly, as necessary to understand where the Chalcedonians are coming from, in addition to having works from within my own communion expressing our view (e.g., Fr. VC Samuels’ “Chalcedon Re-Examined”). Orthodox are generally knowledgeable of at least the borders of their own interpretive traditions, if not the minutiae of every council, but that’s some some extraordinarily difficult information to find, in general.

It can become almost impossible. That is why the tradition has to be alive. Living and breathing. There has to be a teaching authority now that can explain Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We have to have an authority on the pressing moral issues of our time and on new theological challenges. We cannot simply rely on hundreds of year old documents and are often skewed interpretation of them.

 

[dzheremi]

To tie all that into the OP, I would suggest to dronald that each church you are interested in be judged on its own relative merits, and not in comparison to others. Of course at one point such comparisons must be made, but when it comes to getting to know each church, it’s good to try to approach all with an open mind. If you went to visit a neighbor to see how he lives, you would not judge him for not having the same things in his house as you have in your own, right? And it wouldn’t be sensible for him to judge you for having different things in your house than he has in his. That’s the whole point of visiting each other: You’re going to experience life in a different house.

A silly analogy, for sure, but hopefully you can see the value in it for your context.

 

[livingwordunity]

Was Phillip using his private interpretation when he helped the Ethiopian?

Between the two of them, Philip was the one who was sent. See the following:

Romans 10:14-15

** But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?**​

I had always used these verses to defend the central importance of preaching and why I, therefore, had given up my engineering career for seminary and the great privilege of becoming a preacher of the Gospel! And I was never bothered by the last phrase about the need of being “sent,” because I could point to my ordination where a cackle of local ministers, elders, deacons, and laymen laid their hands on my sweaty head to send me forth in the Name of Jesus. But then, first through my reading of the history and writings of the Early Church Fathers and second through my re-reading of the scriptural context of Paul’s letters, I realized that Paul emphasized the necessity of being “sent” because the occasion of his letters was to combat the negative, heretical influences of self-appointed false teachers. I had never thought of myself as a false teacher, but by what authority did those people send me forth? Who sent them? In this I realized the importance of Apostolic [those who have been sent] succession. (Source)

Also Ethiopia went Orthodox.

And Constantinople later fell to Islam. So, your point is?

 

[dronald]

To tie all that into the OP, I would suggest to dronald that each church you are interested in be judged on its own relative merits, and not in comparison to others. Of course at one point such comparisons must be made, but when it comes to getting to know each church, it’s good to try to approach all with an open mind. If you went to visit a neighbor to see how he lives, you would not judge him for not having the same things in his house as you have in your own, right? And it wouldn’t be sensible for him to judge you for having different things in your house than he has in his. That’s the whole point of visiting each other: You’re going to experience life in a different house.

A silly analogy, for sure, but hopefully you can see the value in it for your context.

I can’t help but compare. The persecution of the Copts greatly inspires me. I just watched a 60 minutes documentary on them and it’s really amazing what they deal with. My Church goes into those heavy persecuted areas to preach Christ too!

And Constantinople later fell to Islam. So, your point is?

It did… but it didn’t have to.

 

[adf417]

Tradition can become just as confusing and practically impossible to interpret as Scripture can. Who can sit around digging through ancient ecumenical council’s trying to piece it all together? It can become almost impossible. That is why the tradition has to be alive. Living and breathing. There has to be a teaching authority now that can explain Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We have to have an authority on the pressing moral issues of our time and on new theological challenges. We cannot simply rely on hundreds of year old documents and are often skewed interpretation of them.

That is the biggest flaw in Orthodoxy. They have a sacred tradition, but not a living magestirium.

This is why we need the Catholic Church.

To get a good picture of all this, read “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallitos/Timothy Ware(An Orthodox Bishop). That book is honestly a great example of just that. Although the Orthodox and others I am sure would claim the Church is infallible, in practice, they don’t believe the Church has any definite way to exercise this. It retreats back to an endless set of quarrels between different bishops in all manner of things. All of the main orthodox bishops have fallen into heresy at one time or another. Heck, the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed Marxism as a Christian teaching during the soviet era.

Without the Catholic Church, an authentic living magestirium under the Pope, Orthodoxy only has a slight foot ahead of Protestantism.

 

[Peter_J]

To tie all that into the OP, I would suggest to dronald that each church you are interested in be judged on its own relative merits, and not in comparison to others. Of course at one point such comparisons must be made, but when it comes to getting to know each church, it’s good to try to approach all with an open mind. If you went to visit a neighbor to see how he lives, you would not judge him for not having the same things in his house as you have in your own, right? And it wouldn’t be sensible for him to judge you for having different things in your house than he has in his. That’s the whole point of visiting each other: You’re going to experience life in a different house.

A silly analogy, for sure, but hopefully you can see the value in it for your context.

I can’t exactly disagree with this post; but I would “balance it out” so to speak by pointing out that Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and yes Orthodox, are all catholics. So I think it makes sense to consider the question “Should I be catholic?” (or perhaps the related question “Why isn’t my church catholic?”) at the same time as one is specifically considering, say, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Of course this is not to suggest that dronald should do anything as silly as deciding whether to e.g. become Orthodox based on what Catholics, Anglicans, or Lutherans say about the Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

It bears repeating to all involved in this thread that asking “How do I decide which Church to join when they all make what seem like equally supportable claims to the truth?” is not the same as asking “Which Church also has Rome-affiliated portions that I could be member of?” They are not even close to asking the same thing. With due to respect to all who point to the Eastern or Oriental Catholic churches as some sort of answer to this question, to do so shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (particularly in the area of ecclesiology), which is likely to only confuse dronald in his search for a way make sense of where he should be while simultaneously pulling the thread in unwelcome polemical directions that I’m sure are not in the best interest of anyone here.

Thank you, Dzheremi. Quite frankly, I am so, so tired of Latin Catholics pointing to us ECs as if the fact that we are in full communion with Rome somehow proves that everyone ought to be in full communion with Rome.